Re-Analysis of Medical Study Reverses Conclusions -- Paxil Unsafe For Teenagers
An anonymous reader writes: The NY Times is covering a new paper in the journal BMJ which re-analyzed data from a 2001 paper, coming to the opposite conclusions of the earlier study. The BMJ paper covers the effectiveness and safety of two antidepressant drugs for adolescent use, and the authors were able to re-analyze the original data after the release of previously confidential documents. The BMJ editors call into question some of the integrity of previous publishing, noting that none of the authors listed on 2001 paper actually wrote the original manuscript, and call for results of clinical trials to be made freely available so the science community can verify and self-correct results. The BMJ has released the study and provided an accompanying press release (PDF).
Sure, but if fabricating science to sell a product for an application not approved or supported by the science really needs to be the kind of thing which leads to very significant legal action and penalties.
Essentially they fabricated a study to support a use of a drug, and the conclusions in that study were not founded .. because it wasn't a real study.
Sorry, but that's pretty much a criminal activity in my books.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I was put on Paxil (Aropax in Australia) at 16. It was literally life-changing. Previously I had random panic attacks, with no specific trigger - sometimes up to 4 a day. Leaving the house to go anywhere but school without triggering an attack was impossible, and even school could be hit-and-miss. Add OCD to the mix, and lets just say, it wasn't exactly a lot of fun.
Two weeks after beginning paroxetine, I went to a friends house for a sleep over for the first time in just under a decade. I remember leaving my house without any feelings of anxiety or dread, and remarking to my Mum that "this is how normal people must feel!".
Yes, I'll agree that in some cases these drugs are prescribed too quickly, and too easily, and they aren't side-effect free (hellooo ridiculously easy bruising!). But for the rest of us, they're worth their weight in gold (ie: the only way you'll take them off me is from my cold, dead, anxiety-sweat drenched hands).
You can learn a lot about a person if you just take the time to inject them with sodium pentathol
Troll?? Really?? This is from the last link in the summary:
Unless you work for GSK or are one of the original authors, my summary of the conclusions is pretty damned accurate: they fucking lied about badly done science.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
As a Psychiatrist and long-time Slashdot reader I feel really disappointed reading the reactions of people whose oppinion in technical matters I respect a lot. But after > 20 years of "in-the-trench" psychiatry (public and private settings) I've seen (BY FAR) more good than harm as consequence of our practice. I can say I helped a number of people, lots of them using SSRI. We are aware of the industry and its tactics, and the wax-and-wane of science. But most of my colleagues act in good faith following procedures tested in our gold-standard double blind placebo-controlled trials. Medicine CAN do harm sometimes, that's not new. But when you add all up, there's a net benefit. Just my 0.02
La culpa no es del chancho...